Colts suspend Tony Brown and McKenzie

[ArmchairQB]

I don’t have anything but rumors to go off of as well.  Heard from someone with a supposed “inside source” that they were healthy scratches for performance and didn’t respond very well to Shane giving them that news and started acting disruptive.  
 

Is it true?  Who knows.  Surely plausible though.  

[Hawkeyecolt]

2 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Comparing the last two weeks, it is far from a wash. perhaps they put downs there to create opportunities for him to make plays (which he’s good at) and to get him out of a funk, which it seems he was in. TY Hilton returned punts his rookie year. It’s not a longterm move. Might not even be more than a move for a few games. 

McKenzie had one bad game. He also had an excellent game against Tennessee.   For the most part all the kickoffs are fair catches.  I would love for Downs or anyone to outperform McKenzie on ST’s because he’s pretty average but most likely not a noticeable difference will happen. 

[Hawkeyecolt]

3 hours ago, RollerColt said:

Just suspended at the moment, but I’m sure they’ll be released once the season is over. 

Both are on 1-yr deals. 

[ColtStrong2013]

8 hours ago, Hawkeyecolt said:

McKenzie had one bad game. He also had an excellent game against Tennessee.   For the most part all the kickoffs are fair catches.  I would love for Downs or anyone to outperform McKenzie on ST’s because he’s pretty average but most likely not a noticeable difference will happen. 

I think you are correct. No noticeable difference on ST, which means McKenzie was wasting a roster spot, as he did nothing on offense this season. 

[MikeCurtis]

I personally love the move.......  a bad apple CAN ruin the bunch in the locker room.

 

This is a culture build move.... ... much needed

[ShuteAt168]

With so much on the line in the next few weeks, I would guess that the players don’t want any knuckleheads around, and these two guys must be knuckleheads of the first order. 

[Shive]

2 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

I personally love the move.......  a bad apple CAN ruin the bunch in the locker room.

 

This is a culture build move.... ... much needed

It makes it easier that they're contributors, but not irreplaceable. You're able to send a message that even if you're an active contributor on Sundays, conduct below the standards won't be tolerated and you're able to fill their spot without much drop-off, if at all.

 

If this was dealing with someone like Buckner or Nelson, it may have been handled differently. These two are an easy example for the locker room without hurting your roster.

 

41 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

these two guys must be knuckleheads of the first order. 

Tony Brown seems to be quite a goober in the locker room based on some of the comments in videos from the players, but no indication that he was a bad apple. McKenzie has a reputation as a really solid guy. I saw a number of comments from Bills fans saying that they're shocked he would get into any trouble with how good of a guy they've known him to be while he was in Buffalo.

 

Obviously there's something serious here, but it seems like quite the shock for most.

[ShuteAt168]

1 hour ago, Shive said:

It makes it easier that they're contributors, but not irreplaceable. You're able to send a message that even if you're an active contributor on Sundays, conduct below the standards won't be tolerated and you're able to fill their spot without much drop-off, if at all.

 

If this was dealing with someone like Buckner or Nelson, it may have been handled differently. These two are an easy example for the locker room without hurting your roster.

 

Tony Brown seems to be quite a goober in the locker room based on some of the comments in videos from the players, but no indication that he was a bad apple. McKenzie has a reputation as a really solid guy. I saw a number of comments from Bills fans saying that they're shocked he would get into any trouble with how good of a guy they've known him to be while he was in Buffalo.

 

Obviously there's something serious here, but it seems like quite the shock for most.

Well said. Hard to know. McKenzie sent out a cryptic tweet after the first depth chart which most read as complaining about his place—this when he was new to the team. As fans, we really don’t know these guys at all so I feel like nothing is all that surprising. 

[jvan1973]

21 hours ago, csmopar said:

Ehhh shooting bald eagles or any other endangered species carry big fines and jail time. And are federal charges. which the league would then be the ones doing the punishments. Same with any illegal substance or banned substances or gamblings. 

 

 

Odds are this is a situation where they violated some sort of team rule in a big way or multiple rules and/or repeatedly breaking them on a big time basis.
 

Anything more than that would be a league suspension. 

Wouldn't they be in jail if they were killing bald eagles?

[compuls1v3]

I know many people are nosy, but I love the praise in public, admonish in private attitude of the Colts.  I know eventually we will probably find out what happened, but let the Colts deal with it for now.

[w87r]

1 hour ago, ShuteAt168 said:

McKenzie sent out a cryptic tweet after the first depth chart

Said "he didn't feel the trust."

 

 

 

 

 

That's not the best way to start earning it.

 

 

[sb41champs]

While NFL rules - and - honestly - most workplace rules prohibit employers from sharing the behaviors of an employee who is suspended or fired - it is nice to see that there will be both accountability AND consequences for "conduct detrimental to the team".

 

I sincerely hope that both players learned from this experience - and - lack of game checks - and - will be more accountable to their teammates & team in the future.

[teganslaw]

I would like to know exactly why they were suspended. Someone mentioned they heard through the grapevine about "disruptive behavior" but that tells me nothing. It's such a broad generalization.

 

Whatever, it must have been serious. Shane Steichen isn't talking, though, and it might be awhile before details are provided. If they ever are. 

[csmopar]

5 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Wouldn't they be in jail if they were killing bald eagles?

Eventually yes. Which is why I doubt it involves shooting Bald Eagles. 

[richard pallo]

22 minutes ago, teganslaw said:

I would like to know exactly why they were suspended. Someone mentioned they heard through the grapevine about "disruptive behavior" but that tells me nothing. It's such a broad generalization.

 

Whatever, it must have been serious. Shane Steichen isn't talking, though, and it might be awhile before details are provided. If they ever are. 

If it was a league suspension I would be more concerned and curious.  Since it’s an internal team matter it’s not important to me.  All teams or businesses have their own rules.  If you break them you run a risk of getting suspended or terminated.  Doesn’t matter.  They are off the team.  They broke the rules.  I’m just happy it wasn’t one of our key players.

[John Waylon]

What does McKenzie have to lose by telling the truth? Same goes for Brown. The team isn’t saying anything. They’ve cleaned out their lockers so what do they have to lose by defending themselves?

[csmopar]

8 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

What does McKenzie have to lose by telling the truth? Same goes for Brown. The team isn’t saying anything. They’ve cleaned out their lockers so what do they have to lose by defending themselves?

Maybe NDA prevents it ?

[John Waylon]

Just now, csmopar said:

Maybe NDA prevents it ?

Possibly, but if they’re that innocent they should be able to at least appeal to the league then. 
 

He’s essentially passing some blame to the team and that’s a weird flex. 
 

Maybe they didn’t respond well to being benched, but it was not shocking. 
 

Whatever it is I can’t see the team being in the wrong. That strikes me as the least of all possible outcomes. 

[richard pallo]

24 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

What does McKenzie have to lose by telling the truth? Same goes for Brown. The team isn’t saying anything. They’ve cleaned out their lockers so what do they have to lose by defending themselves?

There is no defense.  They broke the rules.  It’s more likely they’re embarrassed, ashamed and want to move on.

[jvan1973]

10 hours ago, richard pallo said:

There is no defense.  They broke the rules.  It’s more likely they’re embarrassed, ashamed and want to move on.

They are in a union.   They could appeal.  The fact that no one is talking about it makes me think it was a pretty big deal.   Poor attitude isn't a reason to be suspended.   

[csmopar]

11 hours ago, John Waylon said:

Possibly, but if they’re that innocent they should be able to at least appeal to the league then. 
 

He’s essentially passing some blame to the team and that’s a weird flex. 
 

Maybe they didn’t respond well to being benched, but it was not shocking. 
 

Whatever it is I can’t see the team being in the wrong. That strikes me as the least of all possible outcomes. 

Where are you getting this innocent information from?

[csmopar]

11 hours ago, richard pallo said:

There is no defense.  They broke the rules.  It’s more likely they’re embarrassed, ashamed and want to move on.

Which is why I think it’s not this bird rumor going around. I think it’s something that’s not a violation of any law or league rule but one that’s a team level rule. Yet whatever they did, is embarrassing enough that neither the team or the players want to comment on it. Which leads me back to the visitors in the hotel rooms theory. Something along those lines makes a lot of sense. 

[ColtStrong2013]

16 hours ago, w87r said:

Said "he didn't feel the trust."

 

 

 

 

 

That's not the best way to start earning it.

 

 

It’s a toxic attitude. Seems like it may have been a season accumulation issue perhaps. If it continued getting worse throughout the year, then it makes sense that it might not have been something serious, as much as Steichen and co. viewing them as detrimental and a wasted spot during the peak of a playoff/division title push. 

[ColtStrong2013]

49 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

They are in a union.   They could appeal.  The fact that no one is talking about it makes me think it was a pretty big deal.   Poor attitude isn't a reason to be suspended.   

Could be. If they have a season long list of things that justify it though, it would be impossible to argue against. And bringing more attention to it wouldn’t help them find a new team in the offseason. 

[jvan1973]

42 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Could be. If they have a season long list of things that justify it though, it would be impossible to argue against. And bringing more attention to it wouldn’t help them find a new team in the offseason. 

If it was just attitude and such, they could be cut.   I don't think you can be suspended for it

[ColtStrong2013]

53 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

If it was just attitude and such, they could be cut.   I don't think you can be suspended for it

“a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something, typically one that is reflected in a person's behavior.”
 

Attitude can certainly be considered detrimental on a number of levels, especially if it borders threatening others safety, especially if it is repeated instances. Even a simple blowup in the locker room, training room, etc, that doesn’t actually affect anyone physically can be considered threatening and subject to suspension. All I referred to is that that kind of action might not constitute a suspension if just a single instance, but certainly would if it was a consistent pattern of behavior. 
 

“It is not enough simply to avoid
being found guilty of a crime. Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club,
you are held to a higher standard and expected to conduct yourself in a way that is
responsible, promotes the values upon which the League is based, and is lawful.
Persons who fail to live up to this standard of conduct are guilty of conduct detrimental
and subject to discipline, even where the conduct itself does not result in conviction of a
crime. Discipline may be imposed in any of the following circumstances:
-Criminal offenses including, but not limited to, those involving: the use or
threat of violence; domestic violence and other forms of partner abuse; theft
and other property crimes; sex offenses; obstruction or resisting arrest;
disorderly conduct; fraud; racketeering; and money laundering;
-Criminal offenses relating to steroids and prohibited substances, or substances
of abuse;
-Violent or threatening behavior among employees, whether in or outside
the workplace;
-Possession of a gun or other weapon in any workplace setting, including but
not limited to stadiums, team facilities, training camp, locker rooms, team
planes, buses, parking lots, etc., or unlawful possession of a weapon
outside of the workplace;
-Conduct that imposes inherent danger to the safety and well being of
another person; and
-Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the
NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL players.” 
 

 

That list could include just about anything. Conduct that imposes danger to another person and undermines the reputation of the franchise and other players is such a broad painted picture that it could be a simple as a patterned history of tantrums within the four walls of the facility. 

[richard pallo]

3 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

They are in a union.   They could appeal.  The fact that no one is talking about it makes me think it was a pretty big deal.   Poor attitude isn't a reason to be suspended.   

If they were entitled to appeal and didn’t that should tell you everything you need to know except the infraction of course.  I would guess they are okay with it not being out there.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

If they were entitled to appeal and didn’t that should tell you everything you need to know except the infraction of course.  I would guess they are okay with it not being out there.

 

I think they are probably in the process of appealing already. It's almost automatic with the union, especially this year when they've really been vocal about the number of fines.

[John Waylon]

6 hours ago, csmopar said:

Where are you getting this innocent information from?

McKenzie himself seemingly shoveling blame in the team’s direction. 

[ColtStrong2013]

There is a real possibility that we never find out. lol. 
 

Steichen slammed the door shut on getting any information from the organization. I doubt that would change if things went public from either the union or the players side, because I don’t think it would go public, at least at first. Especially if it’s a justifiable suspension. 

[jvan1973]

5 hours ago, John Waylon said:

McKenzie himself seemingly shoveling blame in the team’s direction. 

Where?

[Jason_]

On 12/20/2023 at 11:51 PM, ArmchairQB said:

I don’t have anything but rumors to go off of as well.  Heard from someone with a supposed “inside source” that they were healthy scratches for performance and didn’t respond very well to Shane giving them that news and started acting disruptive.  
 

Is it true?  Who knows.  Surely plausible though.  

 

This seems to be the most plausible of any theory or rumor I've read thus far

[Jason_]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think they are probably in the process of appealing already. It's almost automatic with the union, especially this year when they've really been vocal about the number of fines.

 

If it was something like what @ArmchairQB described then they may opt out of trying to appeal.  Details of what happened are scarce at this point and will only come out publicly if they, or someone from the Colts organization speaks out.  If they appeal though, seems like that would lead to a lot more info coming out, not just to fans but other team's brass as well

[OLD FAN MAN]

On 12/21/2023 at 9:14 AM, ColtStrong2013 said:

I think you are correct. No noticeable difference on ST, which means McKenzie was wasting a roster spot, as he did nothing on offense this season. 

was it tony brown who got the 2 blocked punts?

[ColtStrong2013]

5 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

was it tony brown who got the 2 blocked punts?

Nick cross blocked one of them. 
 

Brown is a bigger loss on special teams than McKenzie, imo. But there is a lot of athletes on this team, so we should be fine. 

 

special teams has been boom or bust this year, it seems. Happy to see us making big time plays under a new coordinator, but we’ve had a lot of miscues and big plays/penalties given up as well. 

[csmopar]

8 hours ago, John Waylon said:

McKenzie himself seemingly shoveling blame in the team’s direction. 

Only thing I saw was the tweet from September 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

On 12/21/2023 at 3:00 PM, w87r said:

Said "he didn't feel the trust."

 

 

 

 

 

That's not the best way to start earning it.

 

 

This tweet was from months ago.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

14 hours ago, csmopar said:

Which is why I think it’s not this bird rumor going around. I think it’s something that’s not a violation of any law or league rule but one that’s a team level rule. Yet whatever they did, is embarrassing enough that neither the team or the players want to comment on it. Which leads me back to the visitors in the hotel rooms theory. Something along those lines makes a lot of sense. 

I will just say that is close to one of the rumors I heard. Actually the visitor I heard is kind of hillarious.

[w87r]

11 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

This tweet was from months ago.

Exactly....

 

 

The poster referenced the tweet from the beginning of the season, so I pulled it up.

 

 

Shouldn't of been that hard to realize, just read the post and the quoted post first next time.

[IinD]

I think I'd care if they were superstars but they're not so I'm just like....

 

 

Best of luck in the future..